Sunday, February 16, 2020

"A Lasting Memento: John Thomson’s Photographs Along the River Min"

Happened this morning upon a TV show called Asian Focus that's on Sunday mornings at 7:00 (what's that about??). There was a segment on about an exhibit of photographs of Fuzhou, China, taken in 1870-71 by Scottish photographer John Thomson, with accompanying contemporary photographs by Luo Dan, a Chinese photographer inspired by Thomson's photographs. The exhibition is open until May 17th at the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA:
As far as travel souvenirs go, few can beat John Thomson’s leather-bound photo album Foochow and the River Min. From 1870 to 1871, the Scottish-born photographer traveled 160 miles up the River Min to document the area in and around the city of Fuzhou (Foochow), an important center of international trade and one of the most picturesque provinces in China. Thomson sold his book by advance subscription to the foreign residents of Fuzhou — tea planters, merchants, missionaries and government officials — who wanted a way to share their experiences with friends and family back home.

Fewer than 10 of the original 46 copies of this album survived, and the Peabody Essex Museum is privileged to own two of them. A Lasting Memento: John Thomson’s Photographs Along the River Min presents this rare collection of photographs for the first time at PEM. The exhibition also features 10 works by contemporary Chinese photographer Luo Dan.
Luo Dan's photographs sound interesting because he evidently used the same complicated photographic process (apologies to my late father for my complete ignorance about the history of photography) to photograph members of the Lisu and Nu ethnicities in southwestern China. So his pictures look very old even though they're not. (You can see an example on this page.)

Guess I'll have to find some time to go up to Salem before May 17 to have a look!

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Missed a spot: More on Grajdanzev and IPR

An update on Grajdanzev's presence in the McCarran IPR hearings. I missed a few spots where he was discussed more in testimony by Owen Lattimore. This was because they spelled his name differently (but inconsistently) in that part, as "Gradjanzev" or "Gradjansev."

Grajdanzev (spelled correctly) is mentioned briefly in a paragraph about a meeting in a letter from Carter to Holland ("Exhibit No. 53"). The meeting is about "Soviet Policy in the Pacific"; Grajdanzev is said to have attended, along with 12 other people (although Lattimore denied having been there). The context of this testimony is whether Lattimore had met James S. Allen and when he "knew" Allen was a Communist.

He comes up later (as "Gradjansev") in a Feb. 10, 1938 letter written to Harriet Moore of the American Russian Institute about asking Moore and Grajdanzev to write a "rejoinder" to an article to be published in Pacific Affairs by economist L. E. Hubbard (misidentified at times as "L.M. Hubbard") that was critical of the Soviet Union. (This is the article, entitled "A Capitalist Appraisal of the Soviet Union.") Originally Lattimore wanted the Soviet economist, V. E. Motylev, who had protested the Hubbard article to write a rejoinder, but evidently Motylev wasn't willing. So Moore and Grajdanzev were approached to write "the most penetrating and masterly rejoinder that can possibly be produced."

Lattimore stated that a rejoinder hadn't been published, but that an article entitled "The Rate of Growth in the Soviet Union" was published in response to Hubbard's article. That article, written by "Andrew W. Canniff," is hereLattimore noted that "Canniff" was a pseudonym (and the front matter to the issue of Pacific Affairs identifies the name as a pseudonym),* but he wasn't sure if it was a pseudonym for Moore and Grajdanzev. The Senator questioning Lattimore suggested that Moore was a Communist at the time in question, though Lattimore denied knowing any information about this at that time.

They go on to discuss Grajdanzev ("Gradjansev") for a bit:
Senator FERGUSON. Who was the gentleman there, Gradjansev?

Mr. LATTIMORE. The other was Mr. Gradjansev, who was a White Russian.

Mr. MORRIS. Do you know whether that is the same Mr. Gradjansev who was dismissed from General MacArthur's headquarters for left wing activity?

Mr. LATTIMORE. I did not know that he was dismissed for left wing activity. I know he worked for a while under SCAP.

Mr. MORRIS. Did you know he was dismissed?

Mr. LATTIMORE. Yes; I knew he was dismissed.

Mr. MORRIS. What reason did you believe was the cause of his dismissal?
Mr. LATTIMORE. The reason I heard was that he had given some cigarettes to some Japanese. He was a man who didn't smoke, and he used his cigarette ration to give to some Japanese who were doing some economic work for him, and this was considered, I believe, to be black-marketeering.
This story is slightly different from the one given by Holland (mentioned here) about Grajdanzev selling liquor on the black market to pay his research assistants. Both stories, though, suggest the kind of close observation he was under--as Masuda described it, Grajdanzev was being tailed for some reason.

Lattimore goes on to say that, given the description of "Canniff" in Pacific Affairs as someone who was "studying the agricultural economics of both the Soviet Union and Manchuria," Canniff "was probably Mr. Gradjansev."

Grajdanzev's name (spelled properly this time) comes up again in a 1940 letter from Lattimore to Frederick V. Field that is discussed during Lattimore's testimony. In the letter, Lattimore recalls recommending Grajdanzev to S. Taylor Ostrander (whom Lattimore describes as being connected with the Defense Advisory Commission), who needed "an economist competent to deal with Japanese wartime fiscal policies." "I pointed out that for his purposes the fact that Grajdanzev does not yet have his citizenship might be a barrier, but he told me that in some cases they proceed by appointing someone to a general job, with salary allowances for taking on assistants for such purposes as this."

Going back to the "penetrating and masterly rejoinder," Lattimore says that at the time, he had "no reason to suppose that Harriet Moore was Communist, and I had no reason whatever to suppose that Grajdanzev was Communist, or pro-Communist." (Which makes me wonder if Lattimore is implying that he now thinks Grajdanzev is at least pro-Communist. Unfortunately I don't think he ever answers my question.)

One more time that Grajdanzev comes up in the questioning of Lattimore is when the senators present a translation Grajdanzev did of a Soviet newspaper article praising an article that Lattimore wrote about Soviet treatment of national minorities. Special Counsel Morris asks Lattimore (somewhat sarcastically, I suspect) if it was Grajdanzev's regular practice to forward to Lattimore "favorable references in the Soviet press."  Lattimore's response is that, "as a friend of mine, if he ran across something that would interest me he would send it to me."

Finally, there is Exhibit No. 566-G, which is a 1938 letter from Lattimore to Grajdanzev. It's mostly about Lattimore's response to Grajdanzev's views on the progress of the war in Europe, but Lattimore starts off by writing about what appears to be Grajdanzev's attempts to get US citizenship:
I think you are doing the right thing about trying to arrange your own application to get on the quota. It seems to me that there is a good chance that this will succeed, and if it does it may simplify the problem for Mary. I am assuming, of course, that you will let me know without any delay if there is anything whatever that I can do.
I'm not sure where this exhibit is used in the questioning of Lattimore, though.

The moral of the story: consider alternative spellings of names like Grajdanzev!
--------------------------
* The front matter also identifies "Canniff" as the author of an article entitled "Japan's Puppets in China" that was published in Asia. (This article was published in 1938 in Volume 38, No. 3 of the magazine, pp. 151-153.)

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Grajdanzev's publications available online

Here together are links to the books by Grajdanzev that are available online, since print versions are usually expensive (or undependable if you buy facsimile editions):

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. Formosa Today: An Analysis of the Economic Development and Strategic Importance of Japan's Tropical Colony. International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1942. (limited to search-only)

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. Korea Looks Ahead. IPR Pamphlets No. 15, American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1944. (pdf)

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. Modern Korea. John Day, 1944. (See below)

Grad, Andrew J. Land and Peasant in Japan: An Introductory Survey. International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1952. (See below)


Still not found online (links are to WorldCat):
Grajdanzev, Andrew J. The External Trade of Manchuria, 1928-1935: An Analysis. N.p., 1936.

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. (comp.). Statistics of Japanese Agriculture, with Introductory Notes. International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1941.

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. The Economic Development of Formosa. Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1941.

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. Memorandum on Politics and Government in Korea. International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1942.

Grajdanzev, Andrew J. Economic Planning in India. Institute of Pacific Relations, 1945.








Saturday, February 08, 2020

A little more about Andrew Grajdanzev in Occupied Japan

Came across a couple of references to Andrew Grajdanzev in Eiji TAKEMAE's The Allied Occupation of Japan (translated and adapted from the Japanese by Robert Ricketts and Sebastian Swann), Continuum, 2002.

In regard to McArthur's SCAP special staff sections:
Lieutenant Colonel Cecil G. Tilton, Chief of Local Government Division, made a singular contribution to the reform of local administration. Holding a BS and MSc from the University of California (Berkeley) and an MBA from Harvard, he had taught at the Universities of Hawai'i and Connecticut before entering the Army. After training at the University of Virginia School of Military Government, he was recruited to teach at the University of Chicago CATS [Civil Affairs Training School]. Tilton was assisted initially by John W. Maseland of Dartmouth College and Andrew J. Grajdanzev, an ardent advocate of decentralization and home rule. Grajdanzev later played a role in drafting SCAP's land-reform programme. Tilton followed Local Government Division to Eighth Army headquarters when it was transferred there in mid-1948. (158-159)
 In regard to Grajdanzev's participation in SCAP decisions on land reform:
By mid-October 1945, SCAP, too, had begun to mull the merits of land reform. When Natural Resources Section failed to move quickly on the issue, MacArthur assigned this task to Civil Information and Education Section. On 9 November, General Headquarters issued SCAPIN-257 ('Agricultural Programme') directing the government to submit a plan on its long-range food-production goals by the end of December. The plan did not concern land reform per se but was to include counter-measures for the problem of tenancy, credit, ground rents and taxes. (340)
Takemae discusses how SCAPIN-411 ("Rural Land Reform") was written based on the view that "egalitarian land reallotment" would "not only prevent a resurgence of militarism but nip radical Socialist and Communist ambitions in the bud" (341). SCAPIN-411 directed that "the government would buy up land from non-operating owners, sell it to the tillers and eliminate absentee landlordism by transferring their property to landless tenants" (341).
CI&E had drawn up SCAPINs 257 and 411, but now Government Section and Economic and Scientific Section also became involved. Work got under way in February 1946 and, in March, primary responsibility for the reform shifted from CI&E back to Natural Resources Section. The drafting committee included William T. Gilmartin and Ladejinsky of NRS (the latter [a "Russian-born agrarian specialist" who supported land redistribution] having transferred to Japan in December for that purpose); Lieutenant W. Hicks of CI&E; and Thomas Bisson and Dr Andrew J. Grajdanzev of GS. On 9 May, Ladejinsky completed a staff study borrowing heavily from ideas that ["radical Japanese agronomist"] Yagi Yoshinosuke had advanced in 1936: national expropriation of tenanted land and its sale to the tillers, compensation for landlords and entrenched tenancy rights. (341-2)
Takemae goes on to describe all the political maneuvering among the delegates of the Allied Council for Japan to nail down the details of the land reform program. There was a lot of haggling over the upper limits of land that landlords could keep--some calling for 5 hectare limits, some calling for 3, and some for 1 hectare. The bill that had to be approved by the Japanese Diet was based on a proposal that "the government fix the amount of tenant-cultivated property a landlord could retain at 1 hectare, impose an absolute limit of 3 hectares (12 in Hokkaido) on all holdings and make the acquisition programme compulsory" (342).
The bill was submitted to the Diet on 7 September 1946, but opposition surfaced from an unexpected quarter. Andrew Grajdanzev of Government Section's Local Government Division protested that the programme was too extreme; what was needed, he said, was 'reform, not revolution.' Grajdanzev convinced GS Chief Whitney to back his demand to clarify exceptions to the 3-hectare upper limit on holdings in a way that would benefit large landowners. Whitney also agreed to modify the composition of the land commissions to favour landlords. [Japanese Agriculture Minister] Wada, however, dug in his heels and refused to budge on the issue, and Schenck threw his full support to the plucky Agriculture Minister, embroiling NRS in a battle royal with the more powerful GS, which won the day. Whitney accused Schenck, in effect, of kowtowing to the Japanese and ultimately browbeat the NRS chief into compliance. Government Section obliged Wada to make exceptions to the 3-hectare limit and impose a land-price ceiling. As Diet deliberations on the amended bill proceeded, NRS abandoned its earlier strategy of secrecy. Schenck warned a Liberal Party delegation of "dire consequences" should Parliament fail to carry the legislation. In that case, he said, the Supreme Commander would have no alternative but to issue a formal directive. The law was enacted without incident on 21 October. (343)
Wow. Lots of quoting there. I don't know much about the agrarian reforms in Occupied Japan besides what I quoted here, but this does give me a little more information on what Grajdanzev was up to in Japan after the war.

[Update, 2/12: This might be useful at some point:

331.42 Records of the SCAP Government Section 
1945-52 
291 lin. ft.
Textual Records: Decimal correspondence, 1945-52. SCAP instructions to the Japanese Government ("SCAPINS"), 1945-51. Issuances of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1945-51, and of General Headquarters Far East Command, 1947-51. Records relating to the Far Eastern Commission, 1945-51. Records concerning the Japanese Diet, 1946-52. Records relating to elections, 1945-51. Records relating to the removal or exclusion from office of individuals considered undesirable as public officials ("Purge Files"), 1945- 51. Records concerning the Japanese Civil Service ("National Personnel Authority File"), 1945-51. Records concerning the economic decentralization program ("Zaibatsu File"), 1945-50. Records relating to religious, cultural, economic, and other organizations in Japan, 1945-52. File containing information on Japanese individuals involved in legal cases under U.S. jurisdiction ("Biographical File"), ca. 1945-52.

Friday, February 07, 2020

WHO is for Taiwan?

OK, that was a terrible title. It just struck me, though, that the other day I posted something about a petition to support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization, and then I noticed that someone had found their way to a post of mine from almost 15 years ago that bemoans the fact that Taiwan was not allowed in WHO. There's a sad consistency to all this. (And if you look at Michael Turton's entries about Taiwan and WHO, you can get even more of a sense of this.)

*Sigh*

By the way, if my loyal reader(s) haven't signed that petition yet, don't let the fact that there are already over 100,000 signatures stop you from signing. The more signatures, the better!

Saturday, February 01, 2020

Petition for the White House to support Taiwan's participation in WHO

I just signed this. I don't know if it will lead to any action on the part of the US government, but it's worth a try:
Taiwan owns high-quality medical technology and abundant medical experiences, and has been contributing to medical issues continuously. However, Taiwan has always been precluded from WHO due to China's opposition and pressure, which made Taiwan unable to access timely information from WHO at SARS outbreak. Now, since the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV is spreading and Taiwan is already standing at the first line of defense, to protect the 23 millions Taiwanese people and global safety, Taiwan should not be excluded from WHO due to political reason anymore. 

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Still looking for those (probably non-existent) recordings or transcripts of "World Affairs are Your Affairs"

I was hoping that in a couple days, I would be able to "celebrate" the 70th anniversary of George H. Kerr's radio appearance on KNBC's "World Affairs are Your Affairs" with a post presenting what was actually said during that program. As I mentioned a week or so ago, Kerr was invited to the program and asked to provide an outline of his expected talking points.

I went to the Harvard Law School library on Thursday to look at their collection of the Bulletin of the World Affairs Council of Northern California, a publication of the organization that co-sponsored the program. I wanted to see if there was any mention of the program. The collection contains volumes 1-6 of the publication (I don't know if that's all the issues they had, but it seems to be the case judging from the WorldCat database), dating from 1947-1952. Looking through the issues, I found that they did include announcements about upcoming programs. But as luck would have it, the January 1950 issue was devoted to the annual conference (focusing on "Facing the Facts in China") hosted by the Council, and there was no mention of the radio program.

Kerr's name does pop up in a few places:
  • The November, 1949 issue's article, "Knowland, Douglas to Speak" at the annual conference, mentions that Kerr was invited to the conference, but the later issues (including the January 1950 special issue) don't mention Kerr.
  • The February, 1950 issue's "Calendar of Events": Thursday Open House, 4:30-5:30 p.m., "Feb. 9--GEORGE H. KERR, Lecturer in History, Stanford University, and Research Assistant, Hoover Institute; formerly, Vice Consul in Formosa. The United States and Formosa."
  • The April, 1950 issue's Calendar of Events: Public Meetings, "April 11, 7:30 p.m.--OAKLAND--GEORGE H. KERR, Stanford University. Formosa--A Hot Spot of Asia. Technical High School, 4351 Broadway, Oakland. Arranged by Oakland Technical Adult School Forum."
  • The June, July, August 1950 issue's notes on the activities of the World Affairs Council of Sacramento, including "a forum on 'The Current Crisis in China and Formosa' in which George Kerr, former Vice-Consul in Formosa, Maj. Gen. Thomas C. Hearn (Ret.), and Tully Knoles, Chancellor, College of the Pacific, participated."
So that's the extent of what I found thus far.